Some gun regulation doesn't mean total confiscation

Posted:
01/10/2013 08:56:26 PM MST

To the editor:

A recent editorial called for unlimited gun ownership to defend against the government. I hear this argument a lot, but what good is your AR-15 when you're fighting the full force of the United States military? All they have to do is drop a smart bomb on your house from high above and you're done. You wouldn't even see it coming. Alternatively, they could simply run over your house with a Kevlar-plated M1 Abrams tank, or shell your dwelling from cannons positioned far away.

I support the right to bear arms to protect your home and family against criminals, but your shotgun isn't going to do much against the U.S. Marines. It seems some gun advocates think any gun regulation is the first step to total confiscation of all weapons held in private hands. This is ridiculous and paranoid. Just because some want to limit gun ownership to non-semi-automatic weapons, doesn't mean the next step is a total ban on all guns. Even if there were enough people to support such a drastic measure, which there are not, they'd have to scrub the U.S. Constitution of the Second Amendment. As a historian, I can assure you that such a task would be nearly impossible.

I don't think I'm "anti-gun" because I draw the line at semi-automatic weapons, extended magazines and armor piercing bullets. The founding fathers couldn't have envisioned such high-capacity weaponry. The police even are often opposed to such high-capacity weapons. I fully support the right to a shotgun, hunting rifle and pistols but I don't think it's radical to draw the line at assault-style weaponry. You don't need an AR-15 with armor piercing bullets to hunt or protect your family. So, relax. President Obama nor any other politician is going to take away all guns. To say otherwise is simply inaccurate fear-mongering.